As you might have already heard, our copy of Team Sonic Racing hasn't arrived yet. As a result, our review for this game will be going live post-launch. For anyone who is eager to pick up or download the Switch version right away, but is worried about how it performs compared to the other releases, this is rather concerning.

Fortunately, the fine folk over at GameXplain have been lucky enough to receive their Switch copy slightly earlier than expected. It means they've had the time to put the Nintendo version to the test and see how it compares to the PS4 release.

To cut to the chase, the Switch iteration runs at 30fps while the PS4 Pro maintains 60fps. In terms of load times, it all depends on what exactly is being loaded. The Switch sometimes finishes first and other times it's outpaced. Overall, though, the load times on both platforms are relatively close. Visually, the Switch version holds up quite well. Take a look below:

When he’s not paying off a loan to Tom Nook, Liam likes to report on the latest Nintendo news and admire his library of video games. His favourite Nintendo character used to be a guitar-playing dog, but nowadays he prefers to hang out with Judd the cat.

Looks about the same. The FPS drops don’t look like it effects the gameplay that much surprisingly.

On a side note, I really miss the music of older Sonic games. It seems like since Sonic Adventure the soundtracks have been a mix of cheesy power rock and elevator/ lounge music. I miss the upbeat pop and electro of the earlier games.

When Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed on Wii U could do 60fps, there's just no excuse to why Team Sonic Racing can't. Either that or Sumo Digital hasn't master the Switch hardware yet. This makes the Switch port of Team Sonic Racing as sloppy as the Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed port on PS Vita which capped at around 25fps at times. The only thing difference here is that the Switch doesn't dropped framerates and was able to maintain a steady 30fps whereas the PS Vita port of the previous game kept dropping framerates. Hopefully the Switch port doesn't dropped more framerate during split screen local multiplayer mode.

Games seems absolutely identical graphical speaking... So good... And even for frame rate... I really can't see the difference... Even if IMHO 60fps aren't so important... I always played and enjoyed games even when 60fps didn't exist...

@patbacknitro18 Sega probably don't want to get caught in the same situation Xenon Racer did which is why they won't release footage to the masses until after they sent out the review copies. Unfortunately since most review of the Switch port had been positive, I say it's a fine port just don't expect it to wow you like Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed on Wii U did. The Wii U had the best version of Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, Need for Speed: Most Wanted U, Resident Evil Revelations, and Ninja Gaiden 3 but because it's a failed platform and all those are mostly third party titles, not many would care to play those versions or probably hadn't had the chance to experience them.

@retro_player_22 Transformed didn't hit 60 fps on any system other than PC (with the capable hardware, of course). This game is clearly built around Transformed's assets, and it really shows given the spec differences between systems. That being said, 30 fps isn't that bad. You're eyes adjust to it quickly and most movies and television run well below 30 anyways. I remember playing through Forza Horizon 3 on my PC at 30 fps because my PC couldn't break above a consistent 50 fps and it still felt really nice as long as your not viewing 60 fps right next to it.

Wow that's really disappointing actually. I chose to pre-order the Switch version, while it's not enough to convince me to cancel my order it's a damn shame that this version can't run at 60fps like the other versions.

@Lizuka Same here, 30 FPS and 60 FPS always looks the same to me. I definitely notice a difference between 20 and 30 FPS, but once it goes to 30 or above it all looks the same to me. On the upside, that means I don't have to be picky about frame rate when it comes to game selection. =)

More power to the people who claim they can actually tell a visual difference in framerate. Almost 30 years of playing video games have given me quite a bit of experience in telling differences. Even just subtle ones. But for this framerate stuff, the difference between 30 and 60 that is, I honest to God cant tell a bit of difference here between the two. I mean their even sitting side by side and I am trying my damndest to see it and I just can not. They look identical not only in the graphics department, but in the way it runs as well. For the ones who claim they can ACTUALLY see a difference here in this video due to the "unplayable" 30fps switch version, more power to you. I'm sure the majority of people on this planet tho dont give a damn about that and cant see any sort of difference here either lol. Oh well. To each it's own. I'll be enjoying this one on launch day on my switch.

If that is the actual song in the game then I am definitely turning the music all the way down. I still prefer the smoother framerate of PS4. Just looking at the scenery go by it's very flickery on the switch and that is a tad too offputting for me.

The cars and tracks don’t give me that road-gripping, zippy go-carting feel like you get in other cart racers, especially older ones. Crash Team Racing does give me that feel and I’m preferring it to what I see here

Just to be clear here, its only stable on PS4 Pro. On a normal PS4, the game's framerate goes>40fps so the feel of the game will be horrid there. Your framerate is also the amount of time you have to put in inputs. If its not steady, it'll feel extremely inconsistent.

edit: turns out even the ps4 pro has some hefty dips at times.

To the people that can't tell the difference between 60fps an 30fps, there are some people that literally just can't. I can tell the difference between up to 144fps although i can't test my eyes higher than that cause i only have a monitor that goes up to 144hz. I even ran a test with my 9 year old sister to train her eye to 144fps for two minutes then reverted to 60fps to see if she could tell a difference. She noticed immediately an said it looked alot clunkier now.
Visually, if you're trying to notice, you'll notice it as a thing in motion. To most people, 30 just doesn't look smooth at all when their eye is attuned to 60.

Even though i'm attuned to 144fps on my PC, 30fps isn't gonna bug me so long as its a consistent 30 and my control timings aren't all over the place. I'm interested in running this with my switch friends.

edit: the best example I can give you is mario kart 8. try playing the game with 3 or 4 player splitscreen. the game goes to 30fps cap then. Even if you can't visually notice a difference, your sense of feel for the controls will.

To me, 60fps isn't a big deal. If a game runs at 60fps, great, if it doesn't, oh well. No way I'm I gonna skip a game or my preferred version of a game just because it runs at 30. Portability is way more of a deciding factor to me.

Honestly this is the straw that broke the camel's back for me. The roster is a weak 15 characters, which is far less than the previous Sonic and SEGA racing games. I'm honestly disappointed because out of all the Sonic characters they stick with the most basic, expected ones and have no plans at all for DLC characters to expand the roster.

Switch version running at 30fps sucks. And now I won't be buying the game because a Switch is all I have. A racer needs to be as smooth as possible and this just ruined it for me. I know the game is only 40 dollars, but I would rather pay 60 dollars for a game with more content and characters than a 40 dollar one that tries to skate by on the bare minimum...

@Fidget@SuperWeird That's the main theme of the game made by Crush 40, the same people who made some of the older iconic themes of the modern Sonic games.

I have no idea whether this theme is actually available during races (probably during the last race of the story mode campaign, if previous Sonic games are anything to go by), but most of the OST is likely to just be remixes of each track/stage's original themes. I recall that they had put up a couple of samples of the soundtrack on Youtube and they were pretty great, so far.

I'm rather biased since I liked a couple of Crush 40's earlier songs in the series, but I prefer this to the overly cringe-filled music from Sonic Forces that was literally singing about what was going on in the stage or story segments (despite that also being the case here, it fits).

I was already to cancel my pre- order, but changed my mind after reading a few PS4 reviews and a Switch review.

This is the Switches biggest issue, it's not as good as the PS. The small screen is great and playing Nintendo games in docked is also great, its the third party games, the Switch is always second best.

There's is lots of Switch footage on YouTube now. The whole storymode has now been uploaded playing the game in docked mode. It seems to run well, and I have looked through 10-12 of the races. Obviously the PS4 version looks a bit better, but the Switch version certainly holds up.
Looking forward to this.....

For a racing game, the 60fps when playing solo and having the whole screen available does make a big difference. This game struggles even on a PS4 (non-pro) according to DF's analysis, so this is really disappointing.

For all of the people saying they can't tell the difference between 60 and 30... More power to you, but it's absolutely a big deal, particularly in fast paced games. Of course, a huge caveat is to say that a steady, locked 30 will feel much better than a 60 full of stuttering. This comes from me having an overpowered PC that has spoiled me somewhat. That said, I have no problem fully enjoying things on my switch that don't always perform as well, but good frame pacing is critical (as opposed to max frame rate).

Once again, no antagonism intended, but watching a side by side video on a phone or even a TV is far different than playing something. So I'm still waiting for a proper switch review to see if you feel it during gameplay.

As I expected. The same with Sonic Forces, 30 fps on Switch.I love my Switch. But with Sniper Elite V2 and Sonic Racing, I grabbed the XBox One version. I want to play Sonic Racing with the best graphics, 60 fps and 4K resolution

Unless the port is a total slop job mess, I can't think of a reason I would ever buy a PS4 version over a Switch version.

Graphics aren't even secondary to me, they are below even that. What's most important is if the game runs properly (and load times are only an issue if it is massively inconvenient). If the game runs well, the next most important thing is convenience of the platform, Switch trashes anything on the market for this category, blending proper physical controls, ease of use and hybrid nature. Then only after those two considerations, are graphics a concern.

As far as I am concerned the Switch's advantages of it's hybrid nature easily put it above the PS4 or Xbone. Though arguably something like a high powered phone or tablet being used as an emulation machine might be debatable more convenient they lack native physical inputs and emulation usually needs it's uncomfortable cousin: piracy.

The only thing that ever pulls me away from the Switch back to PS4 or PC are games that are only on those platforms. And Xbone only has like 2 or 3 exclusives left, making it not worth the time of day for me.

30fps is great for me, I've been playing Nintendo games for decades and 60fps actually hurts my left eye. Also it's struggling on PS4 too, so naturally it would be even more poorly optimised on the switch. That being said, I can't take my PS4 every where I go, which is important for me because I prefer to have a gaming console in my hands all the time. Can't believe Sonic has finally done it this time, I have been suffering from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe for more than 2 years because of all the graphics and optimisation. This is a buy for me no matter how overpriced it is.

As a PS4 Pro and a Switch owner I have literally no reason to ever buy the Switch version of a AAA multiplatform game unless I really want to take it with me. This holds up well visually but that framerate drop is a deal breaker, even more so when you factor in the standard PS4's split screen performance meaning this will be pretty unplayable in that regard. I dont understand how they cannot target 60fps on all platforms as Mario Kart 8 holds up well visually and locks to that target, whilst neither Sonic or Crash really benefit from higher fidelity graphics anyway. At the end of the day I've got Mario Kart for the Switch, so I'll just get Sonic for the PS4

LOL at the comments about "seeing" the diff between 30 and 60fps The main difference is in the response of the game, so not something you will see in a youtube video, but something that will give a tangible difference in the feel of playing the game.

Guys, you won't really see the difference between 30 and 60 fps through a YouTube video. You can see the Switch version trough pink glasses as you want. But there is always a noticeable difference between 60 and 30 fps.I owned Sonic Forces first on Switch and I thought, it's looking awesome. Than, I played the Xbox One Version at a friend and the difference was noticeable at first seconds. Someday I sold the Switch version and today, I'm playing Sonic Forces on XBox One X

It's sometimes tough to decide for me, if I go for Switch version oder XBox One. Games like Monsterboy or Sega Mega Drive Collection are good examples for getting the Switch version, it's running the same like the other systems, but having the option to play it on the go is nice.

But in case of Team Sonic Racing, I don't really need this on the go. I have Mario Kart 8 or Fast RMX. And I prefer Sonic Racing in it's best visual version. And 4K is a big deal. At least on Xbox One "X", where it's true 4K in most cases. Not like the half baked PS4 Pro, which delivers 2K

There are graphical differences but they're all minor. Either devs excelled at working on the graphics on Switch or they were lazy working on the PS4 PRO version. Because there's a huge difference between the two machines. I just don't understand it. Or is it that they could make the game look nice on Switch by cutting the frame rate? I don't know how programming works, so...But I've liked the look and feel so far. I'll be getting it one of these days

@denis09 if you tell me the human eye sees in frames, i'd laugh at you too. I'm fully aware how the human eye works, but if the brain itself isn't processing the information fast enough then that person isn't gonna tell a difference. Not everyone is the same.

@denis09 the human eye cannot see in frames. do not link me to an article saying crap like that. What I said earlier was a poor mans explanation and a 'test' people can do to try an tell a difference between 60 frames and 144 frames by causing an extreme change an then reverting it back. If you noticed what I said at all, maybe you could put two an two together from your article.

If you're trying to confuse what I said about the literal frame input window due to frame time being processed with the gpu as the bottleneck (and not the cpu's frame time) with eyesight then i'm sorry, do I need to go into detail about that.

@Lizuka Probably more so a thing with attention for detail. To me the Switch runs slower but looks just fine - and, more importantly, I probably wouldn't notice if they didn't put PS4 Pro footage right next to it.

@Varelius RTFA, it doesn’t say that. But it does explain that there is significant complexity to the question.
However I stand by my statement; the most significant difference in 2D gaming between 60 and 30 fps is the responsiveness of the experience. So it makes a difference, especially in racing games.

Your wild claims about noticing fps rates up to 144fps are dubious at best. Given there is a difference in the monitor picture between 60 and 144hz, but fps rates in games? Different thing.

A lower frame rate alone would never deter me from purchasing a video game, as long as the visuals weren't inhibited, and the game still was fun to play. I have made my decision on this one, Nintendo Switch version, it is.

@KennyBaniaYou made my day😁This is something which I don't understand. There are 4K Blu-rays out there, a lot of people already own 4K TVs. But still, DVDs are sold way better than than Blu-rays and 4K Blu-rays

@Nintendo4Sonic To be honest I am against complaining about video games just to be complaining. But, and that's a big but, in a racing game the difference between 30 and 60 frames per second is a difference that even my non Nintendo grandmother and grandfather can tell.

My middle aged eyes can't tell the difference. Granted, I did watch this on my phone. I'm not really interested in the game but I was curious, as it seemed like the Switch version was being intentionally held back from reviewers. I might pick it up down the line when it's heavily discounted. That music though! Like an 80's nightmare...

@retro_player_22 What an awfully misinformed and naive comment. The game most certainly did NOT run at 60fps on the Wii U 😂 In fact, check out Digital Foundry’s analysis of the PS4 and PS4 Pro versions of this game - neither are able to hold a stable 60fps so you can be damn sure that is never going to happen on the Switch. Laughable comment.

Needs an option to turn down the visuals to help with the frame rate, in my opinion. For many, it is an easy tradeoff to accept.

I'm impressed with how it looks on Switch and if there are problems all the way up to PS4 Pro with performance that suggests that optimizations might be possible... if there's enough reason (people buy it).

Also... can all the people saying they can’t see a difference between 30 and 60fps please make sure they change the video quality settings on YouTube to make sure they’re actually seeing the 60fps version of the video? smh

Keep in mind that you need to be watching the video in a browser like Chrome that supports 60fps youtube video playback to see the difference.

With that said, I can't imagine not being able to tell the difference when the two are being compared side-by-side. 30fps usually feels OK on its own terms, but it just looks... chunky when it's sitting next to a 60fps feed of the same game.

@retro_player_22 maybe your eyes were not trained for that. Download a video in 30 fps and another video in true 60fps, then compare that to almost every wii u game that didn't really achieved that fps. I can guarantee you that you will never unsee the difference anymore, and hopefully you stop saying ignorant comments like that one

So... The Switch version looks good, is the only version with a stable frame rate (even if it's lower, I'd prefer stable over varying, and my PS4 isn't a pro so apparently it's a choice between ~40 frames with lots of drops and steady 30), and is portable. No question here I'm getting the Switch version.

I’m surprised at those saying hey can’t see the difference between 30 and 60fps.

However it’s about more than how the game looks. Take Forza Horizon 4 on XB1X. You can change between 4K30 and 1080p60 and it simply controls better at 60. Noticeably better. You can try the same with Rocket League on the Switch. Those missing frames hinder the games controls.

Don’t get me wrong I enjoyed Sonic Racing Transformed at 30 (and stable 30 is better than an intermittent 60) so it’s not a dealbreaker but the difference is there. A much bigger issue is they’ve taken out all of the brilliant Sega tracks/characters/references. That makes this game look very dull in comparison.

Yes granted resolution was always going to be a win on PS4 over switch as was the frame rate. But the comparison was on PS4 pro. Digital Foundry does state performance struggles more on vanilla PS4 so not a solid 60fps. So the switch hitting a 30fps is very impressive. And the fact you can play mobile on switch is a bonus compared to PS4. To be honest these PS4/Switch comparisons annoy me anyway, it’s pretty obvious the PS4 has more horse power.

I have a problem with this video comparison and here's why, they compared the Switch version to a version being played on the PS4 Pro. Really? Why not an OG PS4. That's always bothered me even during my PC gaming days. Reviews are already based on someone's personal opinion but when you go out and play the game on top of the line hardware which the majority of folks don't even own, then your review in my opinion is already stacked in the games favor. I still recall my disappointment as a teenager playing PC games using the "recommended" hardware and the game still not living up to the expectations that you receive from reading reviews because those folks would and continue to play these games with PC's that cost several thousands of dollars. Another example, Kinect games on the Xbox 360 when they were reviewed it was in perfect and ideal room environments that most consumers could not replicate, for whatever reason, be it space issues or lighting. Microsoft even did that when presenting Kinect games to the press and public. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a more recent example. From what I've read, heard and personally seen, that game runs like poop when played on OG Xbox One and PS4 hardware and yet a lot of reviewers failed to leave that out of their reviews. Fallout 76 is another. I own two copies. It runs and looks like @ss on my OG Xbox One (playing it off a SSD does help but not much). Night and day difference on my wife's Xbox One X. There is even a significant difference on the Xbox One S (draw distance, frame rate and textures are improved) and yet how many reviewers pointed that out. Wouldn't it be nice if reviewers were more transparent about these things or is it too much to ask for?

@Indominus_B the reason why you can't tell is because the video you're watching already has a set framerate (probably 30fps). So even if the PS4 has 60 and Switch has 30, if you drop both into a video editor, add graphics, and then spit it out to be embedded in your Nintendo-centric webpage... then you'll only be able to see the frames per second that the video was encoded at for the embed, NOT the original fps of the console (unless it's the same as the encode). There's no way to have 2 different fps, side by side, in one video.

@Hck Glad someone pointed that out. I had been waiting on someone to mention that lol I am fully aware of that however going and looking at videos separately, theres still just not a difference. It's just a placebo. People train themselves and convince themselves that they see a difference and so what do their brains do? Convince them there is a difference when theres actually not. Can I give you an example of something that should shut down that whole argument? ( though I'm sure it wont bc the side that screams "UNPLAYABLE" is a bit relentless in their obsession over convincing people of their beliefs ). The ones who 90 percent of people who scream "theres a difference!" look to cant even tell a difference lol. Yes. Digital foundry. They cant even tell a difference them damn selves lol that's why they have to use software to tell them what the difference is. Bc you cant ACTUALLY tell a difference. Now I'm sure, as my comments typically do in a nintendo life comment section, is about to trigger hundreds. But I'm not lying. Or misinformed. Or uninformed. If you were to take a poll I can almost guarantee the number of people who give a crap about frame rate differences between 30 and 60 is probably the smallest percentage you can imagine. So it wont, as it never has, effect sales in the big picture one bit. And the reason for that? The people who dont pay any attention to that framerate garbage are the majority of people. And that majority, most likely never even watched a digital foundry or framerate video in their lives. And that is bc theres not actually a difference lol otherwise you and I both know people wouldnt ignore it. They would pay attention to it and make decisions based on that. I yield lol

@NintyNate lmao right. These people crying "BROKEN" over framerate would be strapped in a suit stuck in between rubber walls had they tried playing games from the ps1 and n64 days lmao. It would drive them mad. lol And the other half would be propped up in hospital beds from all the nausea they claim to get from games below 60 lol. Today is the days of the most over dramatic and over the top "gamers". I wonder if they even realize some of the greatest games ever ran at less than 60 or even 30? Like ocarina of time running at 20fps.

@Indominus_B just because in the past generations, broken fps racers were normal, doesn't mean that they should be acceptable today. if you want to play your games at nostalgic frame rates, be my guest. fortunately, most gamers are not like that anymore

@graysoncharles you see the word nostalgia used to be a good term. Now days it has a bad connotation that follows it bc people such as yourself try to use the word as a weapon in your weak argument to dismiss peoples love for retro games and consoles. Tho that has nothing to do with 30fps in this game here, I figured I'd call you out on your bs bc I'm sure you thought you were being slick rick with it. Fortunately, your dead wrong however and most gamers now days, couldnt give two f***s about a framerate being 30fps or 60fps. As long as that game runs smooth as butter. Which, get this it's really gonna blow your entitled mind, it does 😎😎😎 Only a handful with very loud mouths in comment sections ACTUALLY care about it running at 60 and higher. Your dismissed youngin.

@Indominus_B "Now days it has a bad connotation that follows it bc people such as yourself try to use the word as a weapon in your weak argument to dismiss peoples love for retro games and consoles." too bad you took so much time to misinterpret my argument. Though retro games have that good nostalgic factor, that nostalgia is also comes from the frustration of playing games with bad fps back in the n64 days. Bad fps = bad gameplay = game not really fun to play.

"Only a handful with very loud mouths in comment sections ACTUALLY care about it running at 60 and higher. Your dismissed youngin." If people don't care about a game running at 60, then the devs wouldn't be pressured constantly to make performance patches right after launching a game. If in the past this wasn't an issue, it's because it wasn't possible to patch an old game to run better. You took that unoptimized game as finished and didn't care. But now we care, whether your old brain likes it or not.

@graysoncharles I could go back and forth with you all day but the truth is, theres no convincing an edgy child/teenager such as your self. Even when the facts are in front of your face. Your comment speaks your age in colors. From being highly uneducated on past generations games and why people love them to truly believing these devs actually care about what a couple entitled teenagers believe they deserve. Now I'll just let you sit and think about where you went wrong and what you could do better next time to not find yourself raging behind your keyboard flailing your arms screaming "FRAMERATE!!!!". lol I'm sure it helps you sleep better at night believing what you said. Unfortunately as someone likes to say, facts dont care about your feelings kid.

Man, I just can't believe there are so many gamers who give a crap about frame rates. Over thirty years of gaming and people are concerned with frame rates. Bloody frame rates of all things. Good lord. Just can't believe it.I'm buying this game because it looks fun. Yeah, I said fun.Frame rates.... my god.

I'll wait for reviews. Frame-rate is typically not a great concern. I still have the old Sonic Racing on PS3, so not sure if there's even much benefit to this new one. The main detail I take from the footage is game seems so slow paced regardless of system.

“theres still just not a difference. It's just a placebo. People train themselves and convince themselves that they see a difference and so what do their brains do? Convince them there is a difference when theres actually not.”

If I read anything funnier than this on the internet today I’ll be really pleased. I doubt my 4-year-old will manage anything this ridiculous.

Just because you can’t see the difference doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I don’t agree games are broken are 30fps but there is a difference. It’s a fact.

@electrolite77 you are wrong if that's what you think. There is talk of a Switch Pro coming, that's because Nintendo realise the Switch needs more power. Where are all the New AAA third party games? We either get stripped down versions or we get 6 year old games.

@electrolite77 I can understand some one not buying a game because it looks boring but because it runs at 30 fps, seriously?

These are the same gamers who then go and buy an indie game that looks and sounds 8-bit.The type of gamers who had no problems playing PS2 games but won't play Switch games because they the look like PS3 ones?I really don't know how how some gamers survived the early console generations 😂

@Indominus_B I'm not one to be fussy about frame rate, in fact I find it quite annoying that modern gamers have such an obsession over it, but its very easy to tell a difference between 30 and 60 FPS. Doom and Wolfenstein 2, both of which I own on the Switch and also the PS4. The difference is absolutely noticeable in the smoothness of the movement. That said, if you come home from work in the evening, and started playing a 30fps game instead of a 60fps, you are not going to give it much thought at all.

Getting the same Western AAA games as the other systems was never part of the plan. If it was then Switch would have been more like them. The rumoured Switch Pro won’t take Switch anywhere near PS5 or the next Xbox so it will still be a case of whatever Switch gets being a bonus. Switch is selling well because it’s different, not despite it being different.

I’m not sure you can say with any confidence that they’re the same people 😉

I don’t think I’ve ever rejected a game because of framerate, certainly a locked 30. It certainly does make a difference in some types of games though (I used the examples of Forza Horizon 4 and Rocket League further up) so I can understand it affecting people’s choice of what version to buy.

I can tell the frame rate usually right away, but it doesn't matter to me, what sucks is that during the Wii days the first All-Stars Racing game was also 30fps, you'd think they could finally go for that 60 y'know.

To make things worse Sonic Riders on the GameCube and its sequel on Wii were a constant 60 fps and looked great, F-Zero GX-like.

This is really disappointing. The prime example of this genre runs at 60fps...why didn't they design the game to run at 60fps on the switch? What we're seeing is a stable-enough 30fps, but even the PS4 versions run 4 player mode at 30fps... which means 4-player on switch will probably be low 20s.

@electrolite77 if you are right it is because the way the Switch has been received and not why it was developed. The Switch was Nintendo's home console that could be used away from the main TV. A year into its release Nintendo said that its use was 50-50 between a home console and a handheld only device. People now refer to the Switch as a handheld.

Looking a couple of years ahead the Switch will be the main handheld for anyone who wants a handheld that can also be used to play Nintendo games on a TV. Gamers who play mostly on a big 4k screen will have a PS or Xbox as their home console for all other games, including VR. If they don't already.

Nintendo will have by default lost the home console market. Maybe that will be a good thing.

Yes thats always been the plan. Their Handhelds always sell much better than their Home systems. The Home system market is saturated with tough competition, the market for dedicated handhelds is theirs. They've managed to develop a system that allows them to dominate the handheld market and keep a foot in the Home system market as it's the only Home system that has Nintendo games, and that allows you to continue playing on the go. It also allows them to move away from developing for two systems which is unfeasible these days.

Because it has to be portable it was never going to be as powerful as the competition but they don't care. It's powerful enough to play Nintendo games while offering a revenue stream for indie developers and for publishers offering last-gen ports and the occasional cut down current gen game. It doesn't matter whether users have o they systems as long as the Switch and its software sells.

I can't see them complaining if more AAA support was to appear but they have, by necessity and design, made that very difficult. And Switch doesn't need it. That's why anyone who thinks lack of Western AAA support will cause Switch to fail or even struggle is missing the point.

@electrolite77 I don't think I am missing the point, it's just that I have a different point of view. Yes the Switch is a cash cow for Nintendo and they will follow that cash, but look what happened after the Wii.

I have been with Nintendo since the start of the N64 days and have never owned a games console other than a Nintendo one. So why am I thinking of getting a PS5? Because Nintendo seem to be overwhelmed by the Switch success and have shifted direction. A mini or Pro Switch was never on the cards at the Switch Launch, but Nintendo now realise the Switch has replaced the 3ds but leaving the docked Switch as second best.

Having tasted Botw and the old Skyrim I see what I have been missing. And I would rather play a new Skyrim type game than a six year old stripped down version on the Switch. So we need a Pro to stop the Switch ending its run like the Wii did.

Indi games were never what the Switch was for. By now we should have N64 and Cube games on the Switch but indi games and their revenue has put a stop to that. The Switch is now more of a free for all that a Nintendo experience.

I’ve always had other systems, certainly since 1994. Certainly if AAA Third Party Games (which is what you mentioned in your first reply to me, #131) are the concern Nintendo machines have been short of those for years.

I find it hard to believe the same Nintendo that iterates on its hardware relentlessly has suddenly decided to make different Switch versions because....because why? The current one is doing really well. They will always have had new Switch models in mind and Switch was always designed to replace 3DS. That’s why they started merging their Handheld and Home development teams back in 2013. Whatever we see in terms of the rumoured ‘Mini’ and ‘Pro’ have been planned for a long time. And I’ll wager now all the Pro will do is get it closer to XB1. They can’t do much more than that. This will facilitate current-gen ports as the next generation launches. Either way it won’t be directly matching and/or competing PS5.

They also went after Indie support long before Switch was launched. It was always meant to be a big factor as the Hardware lends itself to Indie games. The result is that they’re now getting lots of support from elsewhere rather than just their own games. The only thing lacking is current “AAA” games but, as I say, the Hardware design precludes that.

@electrolite77 the current Switch is doing well, and while Nintendo are reaping the rewards they know they are unsure what direction the Switch is going. While some indi games on the Switch is good, it's now out of control. And Ports, look at NL's review of Assassins Creed. Developers are just dumping games on to the Switch.

Ask any salesperson and they will tell you that if you offer to much choice you won't sell anything. Nintendo's own game sales will suffer. With more choice gamers won't buy more games and play more games, they will be more selective.

The Switch will ever sell as many units as say the Wii and DS combined and Nintendo can't make enough games to satisfy its customers so it relies on third party stuff. But not poor and old ports.

The Switch is half way through its life span, sales will peek and slow and the bubble will pop unless Nintendo can seperate portable game play from large screen TV gaming. Or is that not what they were good at back in the day?

The idea of too much choice hindering a system goes against the history of every properly successful system ever. All the Home Playstation systems and the ones you mentioned-the DS and Wii-had a phenomenal amount of games, including a phenomenal amount of bad games (so did the Gameboy and GBA, and even the NES/SNES to a lesser extent). It didn’t cause them a problem.

That’s because gamers want choice. No platform holder is ever going to (or should) say ‘we don’t want your game because we have too many’, as somebody out there may want to buy and play it.

Switch is never going to match DS and Wii combined sales because nobody has or ever will. That doesn’t mean anything.

“unless Nintendo can seperate portable game play from large screen TV gaming. Or is that not what they were good at back in the day?”

Well, no. They usually struggle to sell a Home System alongside a portable. That’s why they combined the two. That’s why they merged the separate development teams. They want all their software on one system which, judging by the huge sales of their own games and their massive profits from the Switch, is working handsomely. There is absolutely no need to separate the two and no clear reason for them to do so when they’ve deliberately just done the opposite.

It seems to me you’re trying to extrapolate your own personal dislike of the Switch (over not enough games, or is it too many games?) into a much bigger issue with the system.

i have bought the switch and xbox one version. and to be honest - i preffer the switch version! the xbox one version has serious fps issues - framedrops from 60 to 25 sometimes. so it is not a fluid 60 fps experience, where the switch holds the 30 without any issues. a friend with the one x can play that game in 4k with rock solid 60 fps, but not on the xbox one s. also the lighting and shadow effects are better on switch than on the normal xbox for whatever reason. - switch version is my love for now steam version is comming soon to - but after i have bought the game already twice for 40 bucks each, i will wait for a sale on the pc version haha - but - i frkn love this game. not as good as transformed, but still a great game, especially for only 40 bucks

@electrolite77 you said "
It seems to me you’re trying to extrapolate your own personal dislike of the Switch (over not enough games, or is it too many games?) into a much bigger issue with the system.". Not so.

I do not in general buy eshop games, for many reasons. I buy physical copies. After a good launch year we had a poor second year and a slow start to this year. Each gamer will have their must have and not interested in, different Nintendo games. So another gamer may think last year was a good year, its subjective, but for me it was poor. That said third party games have filled the gaps. But, that has given rise to more you tube reviewers comparing the Switch version with others, and it is always about how much the Switch version suffers. That is not always a bad thing as it is a trade off for playing in portable mode. But not all games are designed for a small screen and not every wants to play every game portable. Example: I bought Team Sonic yesterday, a game I will play on my big HD 4k TV and not on the small screen (the Switch version is more expensive). I'm also playing Disgaea 5 on the small screen and that works fine.

I see my gaming future as, using the Switch as my new improved ds with the ability to play Nintendo games on my TV. And big blockbuster games on my yet to purchase PS.

I'm not sure what percentage of gamers are loyal to one system. I would think more Nintendo gamers are. I buy and play x amount of games a year and that won't change if I have a Switch and a PS, but it will mean that a good percent of my spending will no longer be with Nintendo.

Maybe I am being to loyal, using positive criticism because Nintendo seem to be heading in a different direction than I would like them to go.

@Godlike_Virus but, the crush 40 song is playing in time trial mode. idk if it is a bug or if sega just wanted to save costs for the cartrige. on xbox the game has 20GB, on switch it'S 8 gb according to the eshop. they could just have put the intro in an extra download, maybe it is just a bug. but - i for myself, really don't care. the game is great and makes so much more fun than mario kart 8. see ya online

Maybe they are going in a different direction to what you and some others would like but I don’t think they had any choice. Trying to compete with Sony and MS (and the PC) would be suicide. They’ve got to focus on the handheld market as it’s their bread and butter, and the strategy of doing something different is the only way left for them. That’s why I don’t think Switch versions looking inferior is a big deal. Most people know that a portable isn’t going to be as powerful as a similarly priced Home system.

Ultimately whether the user regards it as their Primary system or second system or whatever doesn’t matter as long as the hardware and software is selling.